Throwing the Hate Crime Grenade

Hate Crime legislation is the last resort of those with no real case. It’s the last resort in the “shut-up” campaign that Team-Carbonari have been running against the free world for two decades. The unverifiable, unknowable crime of intent. (Anyone have one of those Handy-Hate-Meters that reliably measures the dreaded Evil-Score to two decimal places? No? It’s a matter of time…)

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post called Evidence What Evidence? where I dismantled the words of a famous Australian science journalist for parroting bureaucrats and not investigating the evidence. What I wrote is not a recipe for building a better bomb with your Mazda, but Ben E took issue with my pointed discussion in the comments:

“Sad, but scarcely surprising. Sites like this one will eventually be shut down in future updates to hate crime legislation, as they are well on the way to inciting violence and hatred towards scientists and science communicators.”

Willis Eschenbach popped in with a devastating reply that deserved to be repeated.

So you can take your false accusations against Joanne and compress them until they exceed the Schwarzschild Limit and are sucked into your black hole. Your heroes are the ones counseling violence and hatred. After you deal with that, you can preach to us. Until then, it’s just simple garden variety hypocrisy.

135 comments to Throwing the Hate Crime Grenade

Those that want the masses to behave as they (the elite) see fit continue to use the methods that throughout history have been effective. Fear mongering, propaganda, threats, manipulation of “science” have all been used before.

Free speech, democracy, and ability of the citizenry to defend themselves against tyranny are among the only effective means we have to block such attempts to control the masses.

Re-inventing communism. “Turn your children against you” was typical of communist regimes. These indoctrinated children at school to report their own parents if they heared them criticising the regime. Many of the other AGW titels and recommendations, such as “traitors” are all taken out of communist books.
This the proof that AGW is just another form of extreme leftism hiding under the guise of environmentalism. WATERMELONS. GREEN ON THE OUTSIDE, RED ON THE INSIDE.

Well, each aggressive ideology with totalitarian ambitions needs its “new-speech” as is familiar to each one who read Orwell’s novels or lived under a dictatorship. The new-speech expressions must re-code real concepts into sets of mis-meanings emotive evaluation. Then the carbonari must also have their new-speech and they must have their new-speech expression for the famous “inconvenient truth”. And since inconvenient truth usually instigate outrage then they decided to use a new-speech expression “hatred” for the inconvenient truth. Now they will oppress inconvenient truth calling it a defense against hatred. Maybe the skeptics should get down to a project of the carbonari’s new-speech decoding.

Ultimately, it will be the warmists who will face criminal prosecution. I’m not talking about the lemmings who just go with the flow because they can’t think for themselves, or even the politicians, who are enamored with CAGW because it supports otherwise unsupportable agendas. At the top of the list are those scientists who push CAGW, mostly to support extreme environmental agendas, yet know deep down (or should know based on their education) that CAGW can’t happen. Those that do so in a very public manner will be those targeted first. Pepole like Hansen, Schmidt, Mann and Connolley come to mind.

The real damage and crime will occur once oppressive carbon taxes are enacted and the people start to suffer. Forcing taxpayers to pay substantially more for energy by lying about CAGW, should be considered a crime against humanity and it will be fittingly ironic when Hansen faces this charge.

Jo,
Don’t forget that disgusting book endorsed by Hansen (until he was outted) that calls for world wide genocide to reverse technological and industrial civilixation.
That was not only a call for violence, but an instruction book on how to select targets, plus providing a veneer of rationalization for those psychopaths to do it.

My cars lifetime mileage (well over 360 g CO2/km) equals less than a single person – one way ticket to Australia..) So, anybody starts preaching to me, WE CAN COMPARE LIFESTYLES, NO PLANE TRAVEL FOR ME FOR 9 YEARS, ANYWHERE.

Filled in a online form, paid ~£8.00, 2 minutes later get a email with PDF file attcahed..
I have my guilt free, get out of green hell ‘indulgence’ (sorry – offset)

Seriously, carbon offsets, carbon trading, even if you believe in the problem, not a solution..
the rich, just pay (anybody in the West), the poor suffer.
Let Jeremy Irons, Chris Huhne, Bono, Al Gore, etc preach at me..
I now have the moral highground, pity it is all an expensive delusion

(I do believe in man made global warming according to the physics, 0.5-1.0C ( not 2.0C-12.0C -’alarmists’) If CO2 doubled, not assuming positive feedbacks likeall the computer models)

I would like to set up a carbon offset fund where the funds are used to fight global warming in a different way. All funds will go into science which proves that CAGW can’t happen, thus offsetting all of the carbon emissions in the world.

About Ben Eltham: I’m a writer, journalist, researcher and creative producer from Melbourne, Australia. I trained in neuroscience and philosophy at the University of Queensland before spending most of the next decade devoted to my love for culture and the arts. During that time I worked as a freelance arts journalist and critic, as well as a producer and festival director at a series of experimental and fringe arts festivals in Newcastle, Brisbane and Melbourne. I am currently a Fellow of the Centre for Policy Development and I am undertaking a PhD at the University of Western Sydney’s Centre for Cultural Research.

He also writes a fortnightly column for newmatilda.com

Five Trends To Watch In 2010

The failure of Copenhagen
The chaotic UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December last year have revealed to all that the current framework of international negotiations for carbon emissions reductions is hopelessly compromised….it seems as though Copenhagen will be the last giant climate conference of its kind.

By Ben Eltham
Paradoxically, this decision might just be good news in terms of Australia’s future climate change policies. The Greens will almost certainly control the Senate in the next Parliament, meaning Labor will have no choice but to negotiate with them on each and every bill it needs to pass. So if Labor does move an ETS bill after the election, the resulting policy will have to be stronger, featuring tougher targets than the risible reductions proposed by this CPRS.

That is, assuming Labor wants to pass a emissions trading bill at all. Perhaps it doesn’t.

In the meantime, Big Carbon is laughing all the way to the bank.

In the meantime, I’ll go and get another latte’

————————-

[ Can I just reframe that Baa? Instead of knowing who Ben E is, (which is treading a thin line) we can post comments about things Ben E says. Lets keep a wide berth away from ad hom. But the quotes are interesting. --JN]

Combination will create a leading market-maker in carbon emission reductions

London, March 26, 2008 – JPMorgan through its investment bank, and ClimateCare, a pioneer in carbon emission reductions, announced today that they will join forces in an acquisition to invest in quality, large-scale carbon emission reduction projects and to advance the development of a liquid financial market that trades in carbon emission reduction credits.”

Follow the money/vested interest. Huge finacial interest in the futue of man made global warming.
the carbon bubble crunch, will make the credit crunch recession look like loose change.

“About JPMorgan
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) is a leading global financial services firm with assets of $1.6 trillion and operations in more than 50 countries. The firm is a leader in investment banking, financial services for consumers, small business and commercial banking, financial transaction processing, asset management, and private equity. A component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, JPMorgan Chase has its corporate headquarters in New York and its U.S. retail financial services and commercial banking headquarters in Chicago. Under its JPMorgan and Chase brands, the firm serves millions of consumers in the United States and many of the world’s most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients.

About ClimateCare
ClimateCare is a world leading carbon offset provider, founded in 1997, making reductions of greenhouse gases such as co2 on behalf of individuals and companies.
These reductions are made through originating and investing in a global portfolio of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, many of which are developed by ClimateCare’s experts based around the world. The emissions reductions from all projects are independently verified and accredited under leading international standards such as GS VER, VCS and CDM and many bring huge benefits to people’s health and welfare as well as helping to protect the climate. For more information please visit http://www.climatecare.org

Calling for attacks on anyone that holds a legitimate belief be it religious, political, or social (and in this case science based) is the definition of hate crime. Senator McCarthy attacked General Marshall, a great WWII hero, as being a Commie. That was the undoing of him and the same types of public attacks will be the undoing of these CAGW histerics. They will keep pushing and end up in front of a pubilc Senate hearing where, I believe the Public around the world will hear the truth. There were only 5 Democracies at the start of WWII, none of them quit or gave up the fight. Memorial Day is coming up Monday in the USA, God Bless them for giving us the right to speak our minds.

I think one of things that get under the skin of the AGW crowd and their “tame” journalists and bloggers is that most credible sceptic blogs/journalist/commentators do not get into the name calling , vitriolic attacks and above all do not often “rise to the bait” of their attacks. The reaction to Steve McIntyer’s very calm and considered views, for example, seems to perplex them.
The intelligent , polite debates on this site is polls apart from many sites that promote the “theory”.
I think this has been a major part of the success of the argument against the “theory” .

The first to get angry always loses the debate! Never get angry, get clever instead. Never post a heated comment when you are pissed!

It’s easy to forget in the heat of debate that most of the public don’t have strong opinions one way or the other on the climate debate or any other current affair topic, like say the 40% mining nationalization tax. They judge the debate not only from the pro and con argument, but from how the sides comport themselves. This is completely logical. After all, the public knows that the pro and con arguments are probably biased. So a rational non-expert must try to divine from each party’s behavior which is most likely to be honest. Red-faced sputtering nuttery is a big turn off.

Perhaps this is, in part, why in public debates between skeptics and CAGW believers, the believers almost always lose.

“About Ben Eltham: I’m a writer, journalist, researcher and creative producer from Melbourne, Australia. I trained in neuroscience and philosophy at the University of Queensland before spending most of the next decade devoted to my love for culture and the arts. During that time I worked as a freelance arts journalist and critic, as well as a producer and festival director at a series of experimental and fringe arts festivals in Newcastle, Brisbane and Melbourne. I am currently a Fellow of the Centre for Policy Development and I am undertaking a PhD at the University of Western Sydney’s Centre for Cultural Research.”

And if all others accepted the lie whith the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ :-1984

Again off topic. CSIRO have a survey on their website for prospective coastal home buyers.It allows you to let them know your views on “climate change.” An opportunity for all to politely pass on your views on AGW to CSIRO.

Historians have long noted that ideologically driven mass movements in their dying throes always become far more extreme before they fade. First as the more rational folks peel off the movement, the core of committed fanatics is left without any counter-balance. Secondly, as the remaining committed fanatics see power slipping away they’re compelled to double down on the errors they have already made, because those same errors were what made them successful earlier. They have no new ideas to use because they’re now isolated and suffering a “brain drain.” They can only repeat much amplified what worked before. If what “worked” before was deceitful science, propaganda and political coercion expect it to get much worse before the final defeat.

Any powerful movement develops a sense of entitlement as well as superior moral authority. To lose this is perceived as a social injustice by the true believer. If the movement’s goal is to save the world from something, and it always is (from the devil, from upper class exploitation or from pollution) then we can expect the dying movement to use every resource it has in last ditch battles against the ascendant paradigm. The means are always justified by the end.

The best way for an ascendant paradigm to deal with the death spasms of a dominant mass movement is to remain true to its highest values, while welcoming fleeing refugees and offering amnesty to former regime leaders from the dying movement. In our case this would mean remaining true to the values of civil, rational debate and transparent science.

I know i keep banging on about this but what you are seeing here is indoctrination in action. As Joseph Goebbles once said;

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

If they are going to act like “The Brown Shirts” they might as well wear them.

Seems like the climate alarmists have hit a tipping point – they now realise they no longer have science, nature, facts or society behind them and now are hyperventilating that their eco elite gravy train is coming to an end and having surrounded themselves with their own ilk they somehow exist in a different universe to the rest of us. Yet they do not fully realise that most of their fraudulent behavior is criminal otherwise they would take a much more conciliatory approach and admit their wrongs and seek to make amends. By continuing on in their rants they are the ones who are digging a bigger hole for themselves.

27 May: UK Express: CLIMATE CHANGE BATTLE ‘WASTES BILLIONS OF POUNDS’
Engineer Christian Gerondeau says in Climate: The Great Delusion that cutting carbon dioxide emissions in the West will not reduce them globally because of the expansion of China, India and Africa…
And another new book, Climate: The Counter Consensus, by Australian scientist Professor Bob Carter claims computer models used by the UN to forecast climate change are “wrong” and flipping a coin would be just as accurate…
However, Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne said Britain has to fight climate change.
The Met Office, one of the world’s leading climate modelling centres, said it rigorously tests predictions.
Its head of climate change advice, Dr Vicky Pope, said: “We all know that climate modelling is difficult but we have very strong confidence in the key results such as that the warming in the last half of the 20th century is very likely due to man’s activities.
“We are able to test the predictions of our computer models by comparing them with past events. We are also constantly checking our computer models by using a wide range of data including that from satellites.”http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/177422/Climate-change-battle-wastes-billions-of-pounds-

27 May: BBC: Roger Harrabin: Society to review climate message
The UK’s Royal Society is reviewing its public statements on climate change after 43 Fellows complained that it had oversimplified its messages.
They said the communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood….
Its deliberations are reviewed by two critical sub-groups, each believed to comprise seven members.
Each of these groups contains a number of society Fellows who are doubtful in some way about the received view of the risks of rising CO2 levels….http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10178124.stm

The irony is, that they damn themselves as they shriek their strident hate filled demands for retribution, which only illustrates the complete lack of hateful language on the sceptics side….. The public look up, only to see sceptics calmly discussing science while surrounded by a screaming mob;-)

Pat, I would not get excited yet. IMHO, This is likely a reformation of the “crisis story” to make it easier to understand. A “re-branding” of the whole matter (for a new marketing blitz). After reading the comments and summary on the CRU (climategate) hearings I am highly dubious that any Royal Society is going to do much to truly end this CAGW, AGW, GW, insanity.

Many here have asked what the evidence for AGW is and no one has produced it yet – just a bunch of mumbling about increased CO2 and increased temperatures. No evidence of a causal link between the two observations. In fact there are many discussions here that lend credence to the possibility that there has been very little change in the mean annual temperature.

I might be on the time (sic) that earns billions … but I don’t earn billions LOL

Awww c’mon Ben, we know you don’t earn billions. Nobody in the business of entertaining the intelligentsia earns billions. A good living yes. A book here and a book there yes. The well to do throw some spare change your way, you tell them all the feely touchy politically correct things they want to hear via books articles in journals and fringe festivals, rub shoulders with some of them and voila’, reality of life from the perspective of your cocoon.

Court jesters come highly educated these days apparently.

p.s. What’s the matter Ben, no comments about the body of the article? you know, the bit about the violence and hatred? Willis list? No? All you could find was the bit about the billions?

Ben E and his lefty social engineering chums at the Centre for Policy Development feature prominently on their website a “Sustainable Economy Research Program” which “…aims to develop and highlight options for Australia to make a rapid transition to an economy which operates within environmental limits and is socially sustainable.” Which is classic “progressive” newspeak for “Let’s limit economic growth and redistribute the wealth of the rich bastards!”.

The whole CAGW circus is just another version of the classic Hegelian “thesis, antithesis, synthesis” paradigm:

2 – Antithesis) Allow the disruption to provoke a distraught reaction (Whip up the media, universities, schools, politicians, make scary movies and organise expensive, impressive looking international conferences every year – this doubles as a nice holiday-reward for right-thinking individuals!).

3) – Synthesis) Then, with a major (perceived) crisis at hand, step in with the solution (Cut CO2 emissions at great cost to the “polluters” – and we can all live happy, simple lives in mud huts eating organic veggies!)

And the United Nations will save us all – funny how the “solution” invariably involves a major power grab. And funny how the major Sustainability Preachers like Al Gore and more recently Jeremy Irons, always live extravagant lifestyles themselves.

I am so happy that this tool of the idiocracy is on the record claiming that the evidence of AGW gets stronger every year.
Years from now, when historians are looking for strong evidence of just how stupid true believers in AGW were, they will be able to spot this idiot’s assertion.
Thanks, Ben. You will live in idiocy for all of time.

Perhaps you can answer some questions about AGW believers for a puzzled and confused skeptic:

1. If the case for AGW is getting stronger every year why is it that it gets easier and easier to poke holes in it?

2. If your case is getting stronger why was it necessary for the IPCC to include so much material in AR4 that wasn’t peer reviewed as their own requirements demand? And why did they include material they now admit they knew was false?

3. If your case is getting stronger why is it necessary for the IPCC to exclude from their five-star resort meetings, anyone with the slightest skeptical view? After all, a good strong case should be able to withstand a little skepticism.

4. And why do they think these spare-no-expense junkets are good stewardship of the taxpayer’s money?

5. Indeed, skepticism is at the very heart of science. So why is it lacking from the process carried on by the IPCC, an organization running under the auspices of such a trusted name as the United Nations and trying to tell us that their conclusions are based on sound science?

6. If your case is so strong why was it necessary for Phil Jones and company to stall FOIA requests; to try to confuse outsiders to whom they sent data by making arbitrary changes to it; to bully editors into not publishing the work of unapproved scientists; and to conveniently lose their original data so that no one can reproduce what they did to it? Do you really believe losing that data was an accident?

7. If the case for AGW is so strong why was the hockey stick graph invented out of thin air? And if the hockey stick was so strong and sound, why was it so easy to debunk?

8. If the case for your side is getting so strong why is it that you still refuse to debate the science with us skeptics? We’ve been begging for an opportunity to debate for years but it’s not forthcoming. Does this mean that you have something to hide?

9. If your case is so strong why do you resort to name calling and character assassination? A good strong case should be convincing to anyone with a science or engineering background. Name calling just makes you look childish.

10. If your case is so good why do you need to resort to threats? It simply makes you look small minded and intellectually stunted.

11. Or is it that you know your case has been coming unglued at the seams for a long time and you have a much too big and costly vested interest in it so you don’t want to let it go?

I’m sure that you have good answers to all these questions and I eagerly await your response.

Hey Ben AGW = anthropogenic global warming. First the globe isnt warming, neither are the oceans, we are getting record cold = just in case you had missed reality – good to step away from computer models for a while!

This is preamble to the great alarmist clam-up.
Right about now, can you imagine being Al Gore, Jimmy Hansen, or Tom Karl, out giving a public lecture?

Talk about being heckled to tears. These clown acts are being run off the stage. Even newspaper columnists have their breaking point in how much flack they will take, or how far out on the limb they will crawl, to resussitate the fading climate change boogie man.

When these real life avatars of alarm are forced out of their bunkers to defend their propositions, then duck out the back leaving the media side of the panel holding the load at public question time, this will chafe. Ties will be frayed. Dedicated proponents, charged with keeping the narrative alive, will start to bauk, and discover it’s much more fun covering people who actually answer questions; ie the skeptics.

Before that happens the alarmists will try to adopt the Al Gore posture of public communication, avoiding all questions, avoiding all press. To do that they have to have an excuse.

“The skeptics will beat the crap out of me if I come outside” – is going to be their new excuse.

We are cold streak here in California. The ski slopes are open at Heavenly Valley. Fresh powder has fallen just in time for Memorial Day Weekend.

Um. It just occured to me that kind of have to be American to understand how ridiculously wrong that last sentence was.

Anne #41. The pattern is a lot more common place than you might think. Take a look at the Rudd Gov. Miners SuperTax…cutting in at 6% no less

1. Rudd really wants the fight (ordinary punters vs multinational giants);
2. The more South African, American, English etc company heads come out bleating about it the better;
3. If the miners run a marginal seats campaign and Rudd still wins, it will prove to the ALP that the resources sector can be ignored.
4. The issue has not been taken up in the same way with the Bankers and their Super profits. No way ! They have the money!.

The one thing you can be certain of is that all ALP policy between now and election day will be based on the data from marginal seat polling – particularly in Qld, NSW and Vic.
WA has only 4 Labor seats and if they need to write them off in favour of securing the other states I reckon they would.

Liie its been said on many blog sites before, including the infamous JN
“follow the money trail”. maybe modify it for some pollies to ” follow the (political) power trail”

This blog started off as a learning exercise for my PhD in cultural policy at the University of Western Sydney’s Centre for Cultural Research.

I’ve gradually expanded it to give a wider focus on the fields of cultural policy, cultural economics, cultural studies, the sociology of the arts, aesthetics, media studies and the philosophy of art.

And in an amazing coincidence, this by Eduardo De La Fuente in wednesdays The Australian….

Vampires Latch on to Learning.

ONE of the many things ailing the present university – and the list is long – is the emergence of what we might term vampire disciplines. These new disciplines are parasitic on existing bodies of knowledge and tend to justify themselves in terms of critique, deconstruction, contextualism, discourse analysis and other approaches that don’t add very much to the total sum of knowledge a society or civilisation possesses about itself.

Originally, vampire disciplines found their homes within the humanities and social sciences. But they are quickly spreading to areas as diverse as law and architecture, terrorism studies and geography. Indeed, any discipline with some version of the “critical studies in . . .” genre has probably been infected by the vampire virus….

…As a society, we feel we can pat ourselves on the back because we are able to offer university education to a larger proportion of the population irrespective of the outcomes or tangible benefits to either the society or individual in question. Universities reinforce this worldview. They are happy to promulgate the view that playing semantic, theoretical and ideological games before you finally grow up, is fine. Why settle for an apprenticeship in an industrial setting when you can sleep in and wing tutorials by pretending you’ve read the unreadable piece of cultural theory that has been set for class this week?

Why indeed.
I’m sure families the world over, spending their days trying to put food on the table, raise their kids or pay off mortgages will benefit greatly from a dose or two of Eltham Cultural Policy. Really good usefull stuff.

It would greatly educate me if fellow bloggers could list all the benefits and uses of Bens cultural policy, cultural economics and cultural studies. Maybe I too can become cultured, just maybe.

“The lack of a sense of humour on the part of the proponent, or their inability to explain in words understandable to the man or woman on the street what the field is about, also make it likely that you are dealing with an academic vampire.

So how did academic vampires become so powerful?

First of all, academic vampires recognise the power of ritual incantation. They subscribe to the view that if you state, over and over, that “knowledge is socially constructed” or that “any aspect of the world is shaped by class, gender and race” then this will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

“Ben E and his lefty social engineering chums at the Centre for Policy Development feature prominently on their website a “Sustainable Economy Research Program” which “…aims to develop and highlight options for Australia to make a rapid transition to an economy which operates within environmental limits and is socially sustainable.” Which is classic “progressive” newspeak for “Let’s limit economic growth and redistribute the wealth of the rich bastards!”.”

Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall the collectivist economic paradigm has been in utter collapse. (Today the even the less extreme social-welfare statist model is in collapse, witness Greece and the Eurozone.)

Then comes along a perfectly reasonable hypothesis (at least in 1989) that AGW caused by our hydrocarbon-based economy will cause the Earth to, well, warm. By 2006, that hypothesis had morphed into The Inconvenient Truth, a wholly novel critique of capitalism itself. Not only does capitalism unfairly usurp the means of production but will end in an environmental apocalypse resulting in the collapse of civilization itself. Gosh, that’s a revolutionary gestalt! This is the only reason why the so-called mainstream media and our academic institutions, long bastions of leftist intellectuals, so vitriolic attack anyone who propagates rational doubts about the new climate orthodoxy.

Our leftist intelligentsia don’t usually get all hopped up over the Earth Sciences. Booooring. They all failed chemistry. Take for instance plate tectonics the big new paradigm of the 1950/60’s smack in the middle of the cold war. Phillip Adams was actively singing the glories of Stalinism back then, but he never mentioned plate tectonics, I’ll wager. Skip forward to 2010, hardly a day goes by where CAGW doesn’t come up on the ex-Stalinist’s Radio National show which is dedicated to politics, not science.

CAGW is now melded to the class and capital warfare agenda of neo-Marxist social history analysis. The two shall never part company again. Not just because Adams loves AGW, the whole mob left of Malcolm Turnbull are sworn card-carrying CAGW true believers!

This explains why the scientific part of the debate has descended into sheer chaos of late. From Hockey Stick fraud, to Climategate, to Glaciergate to Dr. Glikson’s knowing use of utterly misleading information in his posts here show that the AGW debate has transcended hard science almost completely and is now a leftist socio-political movement interested in only one thing: Power. On this level the AGW movement cannot be defeated by the observational data alone, because the facts no longer matter.

The ETS scheme came with in a thread’s breath of becoming law in Australia. When it comes up again, remember that it’s not about saving the planet from a sci-fi apocalypse, it’s about completing an revocable consolidation of unprecedented power by federal government through the annexation of total control over the energy usage of our nation, and thus of your daily life and civil liberties.

(Note: After proof reading this too long of a comment. Sorry. I feel I should note that no conspiracy theory is needed to explain the above. History, as Anne pointed out, is driven by a dialog between great ideas. This dialectic, as it is called, creates political movements. Most players in the CAGW zeitgeist are motivated by personally honorable values, even if they aren’t entirely honest with themselves or others about the facts. They really do think only they can save the world.)

Great post Jo keep pointing out to these warmmongers their hypocrisy. By the way it looks as if some fellows of the Royal Society have had enough of the pseudo science statements posited on their behalf.

The same debate is hot on the academic ground. The Royal Society is very concerned because of hatred and discredit raised by the climatic science disputes. They want to address their public relations in a new way but they are split over the problems very much due to internal clash of AGW believers with scientific deniers.

… they do not fully realise that most of their fraudulent behavior is criminal …

Nobody is going to go after them … the poly’s are too complicit. That is one reason why the political elite will be the last to change the song. The other reason is that the poly’s still haven’t realised that they have been conned by their “advisors”.

Mind you, if I was an “advisor”, now would be a really good time to start worrying.

Rereke Whaakaro: 61 Mind you, if I was an “advisor”, now would be a really good time to start worrying.

Well if I was them I would cut my losses now particularly as nature is against them (cooling PDO, cooling oceans, quiet sun, cooling upper atmosphere, developing La Nina) but it seems that the UN overlords wot let up on their power grab and the political trends are the same in all the western countries – climate communism at any cost. Problem is for the eco elite the populaces are waking up!

UN overlords wot let up on their power grab and the political trends are the same in all the western countries – climate communism at any cost. Problem is for the eco elite the populaces are waking up!

“Again off topic. CSIRO have a survey on their website for prospective coastal home buyers.It allows you to let them know your views on “climate change.” An opportunity for all to politely pass on your views on AGW to CSIRO.”

It would greatly educate me if fellow bloggers could list all the benefits and uses of Bens cultural policy, cultural economics and cultural studies. Maybe I too can become cultured, just maybe.

Are you suggesting that mankind does not have enough prosperity to afford the time for some introspection? It seems like you are advocating that the sole role of human beings is to toil relentlessly until the end of time. Sounds like communism and/or slavery to me.

I majored in philosophy at university and it essentially afforded me one skill: high level critical thinking. This allows me to nail down the essential components of new skills I want to develop and learn them quickly. I can look at a body of knowledge and discard all the filler rubbish thrown in by the teaching profession which, is a pretty universal strategy for extracting money out of students. This is a pretty handy asset to have in the modern economy. It’s helped me greatly as a business owner to be multi-skilled in different roles. Such as, accounting, marketing, sales, administration, design, project management, business analyst, solutions architect, and my core skill, programming.

What bothers me is the type of person who bags out a liberal arts education. It’s the cultivation of a different set of human faculties which may not not be directly applicable to a given job. But, none-the-less provides an adaptability for that person to changing market conditions. As you can see from Be’s bio which you dug up, he has enjoyed a many and varied professional life thanks to his liberal education.

So to the author of “Vampires Latch on to Learning.” I pity that man. He will most likely be stuck in the same type job for the entirely of his professional career. Which is OK, I guess, if he loves it and the economy doesn’t make his role obsolete. Maybe our warmist climate scientists should have done more liberal arts subjects at university…

Are you suggesting that mankind does not have enough prosperity to afford the time for some introspection? It seems like you are advocating that the sole role of human beings is to toil relentlessly until the end of time. Sounds like communism and/or slavery to me.

Not at all Waffle. My flippant deragotory comments (in this current context) about one person shouldn’t necessarily be extrapolated to all.

Cracked crab and a lot of other things are too short to go around at the UN. They always go first class. After all, they’re the mighty United Nations! And it’s someone else’s money, so why worry about it?

I’ll settle for an answer to just question 8. Why no debate? That failure gives us a complete encyclopedia of their attitude and their science.

By the way, I don’t usually count the thumbs up or down. But 14/1 (so far) is a little compensation for grinding through all that litany of complaints. So thank you to those who appreciated it.

Yes, you’re right. It seems like a strange argument to pursue given his background. I wonder if he’s ever spent any of his professional career outside academia.

Different perspectives? Well, the very fact that Ben seems to value the knowledge in these courses, particularly after being in the workforce(post academically), suggests Eduardo’s argument is invalid.

Maybe Eduardo has an axe to grind against those within his own institution and is drawing down some of his political science education to do so.

One can be educated outside of academia.

True, and I should have said “…thanks in part…”. For the most part, I’ve always viewed education as learning how to learn.

Judging by BE’s sojourn at this blog, his liberal academic education wasn’t usefull at this instance.

I think if a strong argument is presented his education and intelligence will overcome the propaganda that he has been subjected to. I too believed in global warming once upon a time. But, I trusted scientists to be doing their job with integrity and competency, without question. It was only when researching for a novel some specific datum about sea level rise was I blown away by the ‘lights are on but nobody’s home’ phenomenon of CAGW.

As I’ve opined on this blog previously. We need a strong argument and respect to all comers if we want to debunk CAGW. You cannot convince man of anything, you can only provide him the logic with which to convince himself. You can quote me on that.

It’s amusing that Ben jumped to the conclusion that you had no science background immediately. Then backtracked and accused you of heresy once he discovered you did. This is precisely the same defense of cults from within cults. Presume the person speaking is ignorant, if proven wrong, acknowledge sadness that that person has abandoned reason. It’s pure naked tribalism and the only way they justify it in their mind is they truly believe they are on the side of saving the world.

I replaced the words “Group/Leader” with my own in this list:

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe {Enviro cult/AGW blogger}:
1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the {AGW expert}.
8. Followers feel they can never be “good enough”.
9. The {AGW expert} is always right.
10. The {AGW expert} is the exclusive means of knowing {the} “truth”.

Stunning how close that is, isn’t it? The truth is those who ask questions will always be evil to people in cults. Anyone accusing sites such as this as criminal is openly displaying their closed mind.

A shame that physics and history are becoming less popular areas of study than ‘vampire’ subjects.The knowledge areas of physics and history are less ammenable to cultural revolutionary ‘narratives’ than non evidence based abstraction.

@ Bob Malloy – I hope the petition to stop the teaching of AGW in Mesa county schools is successful. We could do with the same over in ‘Blighty. The “Brainwash Them Young” brigade are still active – I’ve just seen a story about “Schools Low Carbon Day” in the local paper. It’s being organised by Cool The World, a charity set up by some concerned parents (I’m not sure if I believe that!). Take a look at their website, and you will see the same old propaganda and links to now out of date statements from the Royal Society, and the Sceptical Science list of rebuttals to deniers…

Really then how come we have this if those CO2 molecules allegedly well mixed in the atmosphere does not produce uniform warming trends.

Here in this LINK,shows that the Tropic has a ZERO trend since 1979 and the Southern Hemisphere barely warmed at all.

There never has been any global warming since at least 1979.It has been REGIONAL only the whole time.

Why is the awesome warm forcing powers absent in 2/3rds of the planet?

Actually, this is some of the best evidence that much of the warming in the past 50 years has been caused by CO2. The reason is that CO2′s absorbtion spectrum largely overlaps with that of H2O. Combined with the fact that the amount of warming falls off exponentially with increases in greenhouse gases, the result is that CO2 causes warming much more strongly in drier areas. Which, in turn, is strongly correlated with cooler areas.

All of which helps explain why modest “global” warming from CO2 would probably be net benefit to mankind. A trend that makes land in Scandanavia and Siberia more arable without having much effect at warmer latitudes could do much to end world hunger. Which, given the correlation in political beliefs, makes it odd that the folks so worked up over AGW are so worked up.

There’s a couple of holes in your argument. Antarctica is just about the driest place on Earth, yet it’s experienced no warming. Also, in the N polar region, the surface is water (or wet ice) during the summer months, so there’s no shortage of water vapor. The S pole never gets above 0C (in fact, the average monthly temperature rarely exceeds 255K (-18C), so the only water vapor is from sublimation. The main reason the S pole ice cap will never melt (until Antarctica migrates away from the pole), is that the average elevation is around 3000 m. Even at well below 40 degrees latitude, there are places at 3000m that hold snow all year long.

I have just walked out after one day, of a three day “deliberation” at the Australian National University on Climate Change. By the organisers own admission not one skeptical speaker was given a forum and attendees could not even ask direct questions from the floor. When I got one in under the radar to the effect that Canberra had actually got colder over the last hundred years I was told that could only be valid if based on Bureau of Met figures. When I showed it was the issue was dropped. This talkfest must have cost tens of thousands of dollars at a time when our hospitals are at breaking point.

So where is the down-welling, measured IR coming from? From atmospheric electric currents operating in dark current plasma mode. The earth is part of an electric circuit in which electric current is continously flowing into and out of the earth, via currents at the poles which, when the amps go up, light up the auroras, and via an equatorial zone that moves up and down over the year, in which electric discharge sites occur as hurricanes, cyclones or typhoons. The source of the energy that forms the hurricanes comes via the Van Allen Belts.

The above is a gross simplification, of course, but the essentials are there, and as we all know, electric currents passing through matter generate “heat”. So we can put up the idea that what controls the earth’s thermal state overall is the current density of the electric currents powering our solar system.

“Looks like NASA has empirically demonstrated that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect.”

Come now, Louis, that’s not what it says. It says the black body model of radiation is bogus and therefore the Earth’s temp being much higher the Stefan-Boltzmann formula predicts isn’t a big mystery that requires a powerful greenhouse effect to explain it. That doesn’t mean that greenhouse effect, especially with water vapour, isn’t part of the Earth’s energy cycle budget, just that the CAGW hypothesis is fundamentally based on a false assumption.

But I don’t think that exaggerating the implications of an already massively damaging claim is particularly helpful. Let the work speak for itself. Nor do I think claims that this is a NASA conspiracy to pervert the science useful either. Both talking points will simply become distractions that the CAGW faithful will turn around and cite against the skeptic camp as evidence of moonbatry.

There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect but there is a greenhouse effect which is basically water vapour as a separate phase blocking outward radiation. I have read the paper incidentally. The whole idea of a radiating gas in the IR spectrum downwards to the earth is fallacious.

Like I said, there is no such thing as a greenhouse gase, one which stores heat.

I totally get where you are coming from. It’s a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (or entropy- whichever), but there are too many people who have bowed down in fealty to the idea of GHG – many of them ostensibly on our side of the global warming fight – for you to overturn them on this position.

A lot of guys are wedded to it. Til death does them part. It’s kind of like trying to talk your buddy into divorcing his wife because of her hair color. You’ll just alienate people.

Joanne coined a new word a couple of months back: ‘unsceptics’ which, people may remember, is the logical name for those who consider that science, or rather climatology, should have immunity from sceptical examination.

May I propose another neologism: Climatography. The Hockey Team’s numerological pattern-inventing codswallop doesn’t merit an ‘ology’, and if they’ll agree to this rebranding they can retreat to a dusty poky room next to Geography. Nobody hates Geographers: they may not have much purpose but at least they don’t start buckin’ for an ology or annoy real people.

If this can be accomplished, can we please not laugh when they blurt out, “Whoa, hang on! There’s no room for the Cray in this crap-hole!”

I’m confused by your comments as I understood that nitrogen and oxygen are essentially transparent to infra-red. Compressing them shouldn’t change the story.

My understanding (and I am sceptical of my own opinions by the way) is that CO2 absorbs a narrow band of infra-red radiation and therefore interferes with the emission of that portion of the radiation from earth back into space. It strictly isn’t a greenhouse effect, but that’s the common terminology for it.

Is there anywhere I can read up on this? I hope you realise I’m not a troll.

I long ago learned (and looking back I’m not sure why) that you need to keep two things as you go through life — your self respect and your sense of humor. If you can’t see the humor in things, even in a bad situation you miss one of the greatest blessings of being alive.

My worst experience was being hospitalized with a nurse whose face was a continual dead-pan devoid of any emotion. She had no sense of humor and apparently didn’t even understand the word. She brought depression into my room with every visit. Never, never, never get into that syndrome is all I can say in defense of letting my sense of humor show in what I post.

I’m glad that others enjoy it but I can no more avoid it than I can avoid breathing. Oops, avoid exhaling though…all that CO2 you know.

I think that an honest sense of humor is strictly the province of people who don’t take themselves more seriously than they should. So I agree with your view completely as long as we remember that what’s funny to one may honestly not be funny to another and that it may take a little while to make that assessment of someone. But you’ve made a good observation.

The matter of taking one’s self too seriously has always seemed like the mindset of the zealot, so dedicated to a position that the possibility of being wrong is totally excluded. I wonder if this is a recognized personality disorder. I should ask my wife who has an MS in Marriage and Family Therapy.

And now the sun is up, may cats, not to mention yours truly, are all hungry and I have a full day of setting up a new computer and transferring everything from two other computers over to it. So any more conversation will have to wait.

“…I remember Lord May leaning over and assuring me: “I am the President of the Royal Society, and I am telling you the debate on climate change is over.”

Lord May’s formidable intellect and the power of his personality may have made it hard for others to find a corner from which to dissent. “The debate is over” was a phrase used in order to persuade Tony Blair that policies were needed to tackle the rise in CO2.

It was widely acknowledged that climate sceptics wanted to continue the debate in order to delay action to curb emissions.

But what did the phrase mean? Did it mean the IPCC is unquestionably right? Or that cutting emissions 80% is the only way to save the planet? Or simply that it is basic physics that CO2 is a warming gas?

Even at the Heartland Institute climate sceptics’ conference in Chicago last week most scientists seemed to agree that CO2 had probably warmed the planet at the end of the 20th century, over and above natural fluctuations.

But they did not agree that the warming will be dangerous – and they object to being branded fools or hirelings for saying so………. “

I have to stress one crucial fact – the downwelling IR that is measured and interpreted to be due to gaseseous radiation (back radiation which violates known laws of physics)is a patently wrong interpretation. So what is producing the downwelling IR at night?

Invisible electric currents permeating the atmosphere.

Invisible? Yes just like the electric current flowing along your coffee maker’ electrical cord.

But not all of the atmosphere is electrically charged, rather it is termed as being electrically quasi-neutral. The Earth is also encapsulated by plasma double layers which only exist as long as there is electrical current flowing. It’s probably the reason that there is life on the surface in the first place.

It was only a matter of time for this to spread and Fred’s letter is the start of the growing avalanche. There is a lot of junk science being peddled and it’s the scientists who actually have to work with physical matter, engineers etc, who are demolishing this CO2 backradiation nonsense.

Thanks for the links. I can’t promise that I’ll agree with the idea, but I do promise that I’ll consider it.

Going back a couple of posts, Roy I think – reminds me of one of GK Chestertons: “Angels can so easily fly because they take themselve so lightly.” And another quote – to the effect that the definition of a bigot is someone who cannot conceive of the possibility of themselves being wrong.

Basically CO2 back-radiation asserts that a substance at a lower temperature can raise the temperature of a hotter substance. The CO2 in the atmosphere is always at a lower temperature than the surface of the earth, so energy flow is always away from the earth.

The only time this does not happen is when water-vapour is present and then its not so much a gas as a liquid-gas mixture – this is because water’s observed thermal behaviour is that for a liquid – and hence its presence in air means strictly that there are two phases in the atmosphere, air comprising the gases, N2, O2 CO2 etc, and H2O as small drops of suspended liquid.

It is pertinent to also consider the behaviour of water in the presence of an ambient electrical field, for that might offer more plausible explanations than currently proposed for explaining how millions of tons of water can be suspended in the air to then fall as torrential rain; it sure isn’t air turbulence.

In desperation, you attack the “insurgent” deniers as now the crack in this IPCC dyke is exposed and leaking. This WILL effect ALL of science as the same formulas has been repeated over and over again.
Science in general is very incompetent and junk science is what our society has learned for decades.

I read the articles but my impression (could have been my own bias here of course) was that it is not so much re-radiating heat as limiting the amount of heat that can be lost through radiation. There are only three ways heat can transfer between the earth and space – conduction, convection and radiation. The first two are out of contention because they rely on matter to carry the heat, and space is essentially a vacuum. So we’re left with radiation. According to the Stefan-Boltzman equation, heat flux (i.e. energy per unit area) is proportional to the temperature of the radiating body e.g. the earth, divided by the temperature of the receiving body. Both tempertures being raised to the power of 4. So if some of the atmosphere is absorbing heat (e.g. by a CO2 molecule which resonates at the wavelength of 14.5 microns) then this is the temperature that appears in S-B’s equation, and the heat loss is diminished.

When you go out bush, you will really notice the difference between a clear and a cloudy night. The clear nights can be bitterly cold, even in summer, whereas cloudy nights tend to be warmer. It probably isn’t the clouds radiating heat back to the earth, it is likely they reduce the amount of heat lost to space. The clouds are likely to be (say) 273 Kelvin, whereas space is about 4K.

Either way, we’re splitting hairs and it’s not worth arguing about from a practical perspective. I fully agree that increased atmospheric CO2 has a practically negligible effect on global temperatures.

If you are not OUTRAGED by the time you have finished reading you should be!

It is quite obvious that they are attempting to determine how much public resistence that would be encountered if Coastal Landholders Properties are either COMPULSORILY RESUMED OR A SUBSTANTIAL TAX PLACED UPON THEM!!

ONLY A COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT WOULD EVEN CONTEMPLATE SUCH HEINOUS IDEAS!

The email addresses of the CSIRO “scientists” helping to perpetuate the GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD are:-

The blaze, in Lalor, was the second within 24 hours caused by insulation installed under the federal government’s botched home insulation scheme, as fire investigators say they fear another death from faulty roof insulation is inevitable as the colder months approach.

Yesterday on Insiders I noted that the Metropolitan Fire Brigade seemed to be going out of its way to report that it was Rudd’s free insulation that caused an earlier fire last week in the home of a Holocaust survivor. Neil Mitchell on 3AW today claims someone in Canberra has rung the MFB to tell them to stop it.

Convection plays a significant role in what is radiated to space becaes the horizontal heat transfer from warmer to colder locations increases the heat that is radiated to space as the colder locations become warmer as heat is transferred by convection in the air and water. It’s a 4th-power effect.

Moreover; convection is a strongly-negative “feedback” factor as rising temperatures not only promote convection, but the resulting increased velocity (mass flow rate) of convection also increases the amount of heat taken up by the fluid (air and water).

The surface of the planet is not thermodynamically uniform. Nor is the atmosphere. Nor the oceans. We cannot know enough to accurately model the thermodynamic and fluid processes to have any worthwhile predictive ability about climate in the long term.

What a fortuitous coincidence that his name stands for the antithesis of what he preaches. So I’ve been suffering through an AlGore for the past three winters or more and didn’t even know it. Will wonders never cease?

I’ve looked quite extensively into the electrical properties of the climate system. Yes, there is a current, but the leakage current (clear sky) is almost zero. Most of the current flowing in the system is via lightning.

Regarding clouds, they form a capacitance to the surface. Forces act on the plates of a charged capacitor according to F = q^2/2*e0*A, where q is the charge stored and A is the are of the plates. Forces act both ways. There is an electrical attraction between the oppositely charged plates which pulls them together, while the energy stored within pushes the plates apart. I suspect that these equal and opposite forces are largely responsible for cloud bottoms being relatively flat. Just as a charged capacitor established forces on the plates of a capacitor, forces applied to capacitor plates can charge and discharge them. If you consider the mass of the cloud pushing down on the top plate of the capacitor, this is the source of the energy needed to amp up the charged knocked off by collisions into the Gev’s of energy required to produce lightning.

And yes, something must be holding up clouds. While water vapor is lighter than air, liquid water is not, so clouds are quite heavy. This brings up another source of cloud energy, which is the stored potential energy of water lifted against the force of gravity which seems to be the ultimate source of the energy in a lightning bolt.

There is a way to consider excited CO2 as being hotter than the surface. If you consider the equivalent temperature increase from the addition of a 15u photons worth of energy to a single CO2 molecule, it’s quite large and certainly enough to raise it’s equivalent temperature to be higher than the surface. Of course, this energy is quickly redistributed to the other 99.962% of the gas molecules in the atmosphere, primarily through collisions, increasing their temperature by a small amount. The warmed up atmosphere then acts as a black body radiator (actually a gray body), where half of it’s thermal energy is directed up and half back down to the surface.

Gravity works. I have very sound empirical evidence for this and I reckon we can work out an adequate experiment to do this as well. Galileo had a similar job at Pisa sometime in Rennaisance Italy but he didn’t consider the drag forces of significantly different sized particles when he dropped two balls (one small, one large) from the leaning tower of Pisa. If he had used an ultrafine ball (e.g. a grain of fine steel and a cannon ball) there would have been a measurable difference due to Stokes Law. This is the one which accounts for the viscosity of the media through which a body is falling and the drag forces that are proportionately larger for a smaller body. (Which infers larger surface (i.e. more drag) per unit volume.)

An example – on a cold winter morning. As we exhale, we see drops of water vapour forming from our breath like clouds. They don’t drop to the ground as fast as we would expect (say) a rain drop to because each miniscule water droplet undures much larger drag forces per unit mass than a water droplet. This is despite the same density and composition in each case. The breath cloud droplets have a much lower terminal velocity and are more susceptible to other forces such as the rising draught of our hot, steamy breath…

By the way. Still waiting to hear from Glenn after his post a few days ago. I suppose my answer is just another hour of my life I’ll never get back.

I still wonder why increased atmospheric CO2 can be both a cause and an effect (as a result of oceanic CO2 release) of increased atmopheric warming. Without assuming an intrinsically unstable global climate, incapable of sustaining life, of course.

You speak much truth. Heat transfer does occur due to convection within the atmophere and is a huge driver in transering heat from the tropics to the poles. But obviously there can’t be heat transfer to the emptiness of space when there is neglibible mass in the molecular path length to accept it. To all intents, the earth is surrounded in a vacuum. It’s like we’re in a big vacuum flask. The only significant way of heat OUT of the planetary system is via radiation.

But increased CO2 in the atmosphere won’t change the amount of infra-red (wavelength 14.5 micron) emitted by the earth’s surface once it’s been effectively extinguished by the other 350-odd ppm of CO2 already in the atmosphere. As Mr Churchill once said, the additional effect is only one of making the “rubble bounce”. To coin a phrase, SFA, whatever that means…

And if you wonder any further, ask why CO2 levels of 8000 ppm (about 15 times higher than now) had no (deleterious) effect either on global climate or oceanic pH.

Fully agree – we don’t know enough to model the planetary atmosphere. But I’m sure if I had a conscience-alectomy, and was given enough money and some status, I could try to put up a very convincing grant application as to why this “very likely” is the case…

I’ve been following the anti-hate campaign in the USA for fifteen years. Its leading organizations are the Southern Poverty Law Center and The Anti-Defamation League, enemies of free speech. The SPLC uses the concept of ‘hate speech’ to try to silence critics of the US government. The ADL does the same for the Israeli government. Now climate sceptics are in the crosshairs. It’s difficult to do, but if we are to preserve freedom, we have to defend all potential victims of hate speech legislation, even the bad guys.

[...] out of Pat Michaels, but is now bleating about concerns for his own safety. Jo Nova finds that ecotards like projection, and warmists are engaging in reasoned debate threats of violence against Roger Pielke Jr. [...]